2000: Pat Buchanan (R) vs. Joe Lieberman (D)

[darklordoftech]

The most “paleoconservative” Republican vs. the most “neoconservative” Democrat.

[Agonized-Statism]

Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) / Senator John McCain (R-AZ) ✓
Fmr. White House Communications Director Pat Buchanan (R-VA) / Senator John Danforth (R-MO)

Very strong Evangelical turnout, but that's about all Buchanan has going for him.

[NewYorkExpress]

Joe Lieberman/Max Cleland 45% 281 EV

Pat Buchanan/John Ashcroft 43% 254 EV

Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 11% 3 EV

[Suburbia]

A Jewish man is not winning the presidency in 2000. Let's get that clear here.

McCain-Lieberman would be a disaster.

Easy Buchanan win.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

A Jewish man is not winning the presidency in 2000. Let's get that clear here.

The fact he was 537 votes away from becoming VP is evidence otherwise. Buchanan is very underqualified and out of step with what most of America ideologically aligned with. Wouldn't be surprised if he did similar to or better than Clinton, but I'll give Buchanan the benefit of the doubt and give him what I think his best-case scenario is, and even then, it might be too generous to Buchanan.

Joe Lieberman - 301 EVs
Pat Buchanan - 237 EVs

[bagelman]

https://www.yapms.com/app/?m=4tr1

Somewhat in the style of 2020 or 2016, Buchanan overpreforms expectations after running a populist campaign against 4 more years of neoliberal Democrats. However, he loses. Low turnout, high Nader vote as he clears 5%.

Buchanan could do worse than this especially if Lieberman is able to mount a decent enough campaign. This kind of assumes Lieberman isn't a great national campaigner.